Assessing the wishes of the child in regard to contact with a parent undermines those wishes

Sorry, @Knight; I missed this part, too...

"Now he's 4, and he's in his 3rd foster home. It's a really good one, and I'm happy for him, but the poor little man is asking CPS to let him visit me...they have never listened to him. He told them "My mom is mean to me" when he was only 2 1/2, and nothing happened. Well, his preschool teacher called his mother and told her what Paxton said. Guess how that worked out for him?"

At 2 1/2
"My mom is mean to me" What does that mean? Unless CPS is there 24/7 watching exactly what "mean" might be how can the system be faulted? He was in pre school, verbal by Paxton prompted a call to the mother. The teacher called the mother not CPS. Isn't that reasonable for verbal?

Actually, teachers of children with an open CPS case are required to advise CPS first. The kids were living with their mom but this happened within the 6-month post-reunification "support period", when CPS monitors the family, regular drug tests are required, and preschool and therapies aren't optional...the state retains the right to make decisions re the kids' education and health. It's possible the teacher forgot. CPS is notorious for it's lack of communication and poor teamwork.
 

@Murrmurr

As a topic that is near & dear to grahamg's heart ongoing posts IMO help me understand why it's important to him. Input from you reinforces my belief children should be heard when it come to their welfare.
 
grahamg said:
I have only one change to propose, and it is one our UK family courts have considered, (maybe it has even been legislated for but not enacted).

It is a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact", (hence a qualified right, requiring the courts to support parents approaching them unless there is a good reason not to do so).

I hope you appreciate the brief/succinct response to your question!
Click to expand...
OK so how would a court or judge get information to hear & decide on a rebuttal. What credible source would be used to present facts? How would investigation into a rebuttal be funded?

You continue to post about parental rights.
Still didn't get a response to.
Do you believe children should be able to have the right to chose whether they want to live with only one parent or be emancipated?
 

Knight said:
Not sorry I asked. You filled in details that were missing in the post I questioned. Your continued interest in Paxtons welfare managed to get CPS employees fired. The system follows protocol that in the case with Paxton don't align with the best interests of the child.
Perhaps your continuing interest in his welfare will eventually help him. We can all hope for the best.
My continuing posts are about children having the right to express themselves which grahamg seems to want disallowed.
Click to expand...
I think you've slightly overstated my case.

I'd settle for the situation I was told existed in English law, when courts were said to assume the views of the child would align with those of the parent they lived with most of the time, (as mentioned earlier).

We've read Hafens views between us, and not so far as I'm aware demolished his assertion "children are being abandoned to their autonomy", (though others have tried to do so as quoted earlier on the thread).

That is an issue, if it has any credence, and is very much linked to the issue you wish to accuse me of, denying children a voice in high conflict situations, (or at least following the assumptions I believe were formerly followed in our UK courts).

If children are being manipulated into saying whatever they might say, and/or succumbing to inevitable pressures placed upon them, can you continue to assert giving "the children the right to be heard" is doing them any favours, (and maybe risks making the family law system into a farce, where any rubbish gets accepted as fact)?

You don't get to decide who your parents are under any normal situations, yet it seems okay to pretend giving children a voice to do just that is a good thing you appear to be arguing, (hope I'm not too guilty of overstating your position there?).
 
Knight said:
@Murrmurr
As a topic that is near & dear to grahamg's heart ongoing posts IMO help me understand why it's important to him. Input from you reinforces my belief children should be heard when it come to their welfare.
Click to expand...
Its my belief there is plenty of room for Murrmurr to achieve the protections he wishes to see delivered, (and I'd support), and the modest reform I've stated I seek, i.e. A"rebuttable presumption in favour of contact".

If harm to a child isnt sufficient to deny a parent their "rebuttable" right of contact then what is?
 
Knight said:
OK so how would a court or judge get information to hear & decide on a rebuttal. What credible source would be used to present facts? How would investigation into a rebuttal be funded?
You continue to post about parental rights.
Still didn't get a response to.
Do you believe children should be able to have the right to chose whether they want to live with only one parent or be emancipated?
Click to expand...
I'm only suggesting a return to what I believe was the case in UK courts thirty years ago, so not so revolutionary a change in my view, (and as previously stated our UK government enacted legislation permitting the presumption I keep mentioning, just hadn't brought it into force).
 
Wow. What a mess.

Why can't some parents (married or otherwise) put their love for a child or children above their hate and anger toward each other?

That has always baffled me.
 
Pookie said:
but in ow. What a mess.
Why can't some parents (married or otherwise) put their love for a child or children above their hate and anger toward each other?
That has always baffled me.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest human nature probably means some separated parents feel threatened should the child feel love towards their former partner, (and any new partners each parent has acquired may reinforce this feeling, and encourage condemnation of the target parent).
I'm told this is common enough, and the woman I mentioned who lost contact with all four of her children within a few months of splitting from her husband (called Penny Cross), explained the situation you're rightly appalled about but it is very difficult to avoid.
 
Last edited:
grahamg said:
I'd suggest human nature probably means some separated parents feel threatened should the child feel love towards their former partner, (and any new partners each parent has acquired may reinforce this feeling, and encourage condemnation of the target parent).
I'm told this is common enough, and the woman I mentioned who lost contact with all four of her children within a few months of splitting from her husband (called Penny Cross), explained the situation you're rightly appalled about but it is very difficult to avoid.
Click to expand...
I think I know why the love tug-of-war is very difficult to avoid; because people used to raise their kids by The Golden Rule, and how to make the best of what they had, and toys weren't franchised - no one's ever made a movie about a Tonka Truck or a pack of marbles turning into superheros - televisions weren't more than 26" across, kids didn't own pocket-sized computers, little girls didn't wear make-up, and kids clothes looked like kids clothes - the only time an 8 year old girl wore clothes that were too tight or too short is when she was in the process of outgrowing them.

Plus, schools taught academics, not social behavior. The teacher didn't play psychologist and suggest you put your son on medication so he'd stop fidgeting and pay attention.

As late as while mine were growing up, kids lived under the restraint, discipline, and tutelage of the adults and authorities in their lives. That's not the case anymore. Ask a 12yr-old today to name one authority figure in his life and he'll tell you he doesn't have any...no one has authority over his life. Except maybe one or two YouTube influencers.

So, today's kids believe they are autonomous. And a lot of them have to be because mom's too hungover to make breakfast and get them off to school with a decent lunch, and it's anyone's guess where dad slept. And then you have the other half, where mom has to leave for work before the kids even finish their artificially flavored cereal, and dad sleeps until about dinnertime because he works nights, but that's ok because they don't eat together anyway - little Janie is at her BFF's house experimenting with make-up and fashion-trends and young David's at Steve's place experimenting with drugs. And way too many parents have become so narcissistic they're too hung up on their own unfulfilled desires, weight-gain, sagging boobs and diminishing ab-muscle definition to even care about what their kids are up to.

And laws have to keep up with change and be equally fair to everyone. And, imo, law creators can't do that. No legislator is genius enough, political bias effects their thinking, and a lot of them are corrupt anyway...they have their own influencers.

Laws are not and can not be fair. Not to everyone. That's my opinion, anyway. And it's unshakable.
 
grahamg said:
I'd suggest human nature probably means some separated parents feel threatened should the child feel love towards their former partner, (and any new partners each parent has acquired may reinforce this feeling, and encourage condemnation of the target parent).
I'm told this is common enough, and the woman I mentioned who lost contact with all four of her children within a few months of splitting from her husband (called Penny Cross), explained the situation you're rightly appalled about but it is very difficult to avoid.
Click to expand...
I can understand the separated parents do work together and the child loves them both. But here is the thing. New partners. New partners with single parents buy them iPhones, games, computer consoles, computers, even cars to encourage the kids to come over to the new boyfriend/girlfriend. Then the kids end up living with those people and it's a total train wreck because these relationships aren't stable.
 
Pookie said:
I can understand the separated parents do work together and the child loves them both. But here is the thing. New partners. New partners with single parents buy them iPhones, games, computer consoles, computers, even cars to encourage the kids to come over to the new boyfriend/girlfriend. Then the kids end up living with those people and it's a total train wreck because these relationships aren't stable.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you came back on this topic, as I was contemplating adding to my last response to your first message.

Using this lady Penny Cross who lost all contact with her four children within months of breaking up from her husband, if we're prepared to consider her actions not warranting losing all contact with her children, and yes I'm pretty sure having read Penny's book her ex. carries much responsibility for this situation I will assume, (without hearing his side I know, but if I went into the detail I do have I think I could persuade most to agree with my view), then where does this take us?

I'd say focus should be on the way the family courts chose to treat Penny, and this leads on to her eventually setting up an organisation to help other mothers in the same situation, and write such a broadly researched and intellectually robust book.

I can imagine Penny's children's views having been considered by the courts, and hence she received no assistance. However, if the courts did try to assist her in the UK the fact is any "contact order" they might have granted would not have been worth the paper it was written on I believe.

I know this sounds like all speculation, and much of it is, but where I'm going with this is to refer to a man and his daughter who I met on my one visit to our UK House of Parliament. This man's wife had left taking their three daughters to live in France with her new partner. The man approached the French courts when contact with his children was being blocked and was granted a contact order. Now here is the difference between the French system and the UK system, the father was told by the French judge when he granted the order, that if his ex. did not comply with it then he was not to return to court, but to go to the local gendarmerie and an officer would accompany him and make sure he got to see his children.

I mention this of course to show family courts can address the issue of one parent obstructing contact if they wish, and its too great a cop out to say "the UK family law cannot address all the issues between parents over their children following divorce".

Now returning to what you have said above in your latest post, I believe I know what can go through the minds of those attempting to maintain contact with their children following divorce/separation.

Some mothers who have custody of the child may with some justification feel the need to "prove" they are more than just good mothers, but paragons of virtue, even saying pious things like "In a perfect world the father should have contact with their child", (whilst in reality they have been doing all in their power to make sure the threat they see the child loving their dads does not mean the dad is loved by the child as much as the child loves them). Bear in mind too the child, (although not a clone obviously), will be like their mother in many respects, and maybe try to model their behaviour on them. In fact the love a father might have once felt for their wife plays a part in the way they feel about their child, I think that's the case isn't it, and while doing all in their power to put this to one side when trying to maintain their relationship with the child, the father is hardly likely to be able to behave totally normally towards their ex., as though they had never been married.

One last comment concerns the man mentioned above whose wife took the three daughters to live in France. Once contact with those children had been successfully established with the help of the French courts, he and his ex. did become friendly enough so that when he visited France his ex-wife permitted him to stay at the home she had made with her new partner.

To my mind this shows the wisdom of the French courts, and the judge presiding, and their whole family courts system. Dealing with contact orders in a very direct way, demonstrating the flouting of their orders was a serious matter, and so on, (all of which is not the case here I'm reliably informed).
 
When you have a baby, and married and all is good, there should never be an issue if you separate. I never went through this but a friend did. Thks stuff sounds a little nuts, but having lived overseas for a short time, nothing surprises me there.
 
Pookie said:
When you have a baby, and married and all is good, there should never be an issue if you separate. I never went through this but a friend did. Thinks stuff sounds a little nuts, but having lived overseas for a short time, nothing surprises me there.
Click to expand...
Where a difference could be made, instead of framing everything in terms of what someone claims is in the child's best interests, (and then all the arguments over whether the child has a voice, or is being manipulated etc., etc., etc.), why not obliged the courts to take a view that decent parents should be helped. Those parents who have done all they could, (and as much as anyone could reasonably be expected to do for the children they love), that the courts duty then, in the interests of justice, is to help those parents at least a little?
 
Last edited:
grahamg said:
I'm glad you came back on this topic, as I was contemplating adding to my last response to your first message.

Using this lady Penny Cross who lost all contact with her four children within months of breaking up from her husband, if we're prepared to consider her actions not warranting losing all contact with her children, and yes I'm pretty sure having read Penny's book her ex. carries much responsibility for this situation I will assume, (without hearing his side I know, but if I went into the detail I do have I think I could persuade most to agree with my view), then where does this take us?

I'd say focus should be on the way the family courts chose to treat Penny, and this leads on to her eventually setting up an organisation to help other mothers in the same situation, and write such a broadly researched and intellectually robust book.

I can imagine Penny's children's views having been considered by the courts, and hence she received no assistance. However, if the courts did try to assist her in the UK the fact is any "contact order" they might have granted would not have been worth the paper it was written on I believe.

I know this sounds like all speculation, and much of it is, but where I'm going with this is to refer to a man and his daughter who I met on my one visit to our UK House of Parliament. This man's wife had left taking their three daughters to live in France with her new partner. The man approached the French courts when contact with his children was being blocked and was granted a contact order. Now here is the difference between the French system and the UK system, the father was told by the French judge when he granted the order, that if his ex. did not comply with it then he was not to return to court, but to go to the local gendarmerie and an officer would accompany him and make sure he got to see his children.

I mention this of course to show family courts can address the issue of one parent obstructing contact if they wish, and its too great a cop out to say "the UK family law cannot address all the issues between parents over their children following divorce".

Now returning to what you have said above in your latest post, I believe I know what can go through the minds of those attempting to maintain contact with their children following divorce/separation.

Some mothers who have custody of the child may with some justification feel the need to "prove" they are more than just good mothers, but paragons of virtue, even saying pious things like "In a perfect world the father should have contact with their child", (whilst in reality they have been doing all in their power to make sure the threat they see the child loving their dads does not mean the dad is loved by the child as much as the child loves them). Bear in mind too the child, (although not a clone obviously), will be like their mother in many respects, and maybe try to model their behaviour on them. In fact the love a father might have once felt for their wife plays a part in the way they feel about their child, I think that's the case isn't it, and while doing all in their power to put this to one side when trying to maintain their relationship with the child, the father is hardly likely to be able to behave totally normally towards their ex., as though they had never been married.

One last comment concerns the man mentioned above whose wife took the three daughters to live in France. Once contact with those children had been successfully established with the help of the French courts, he and his ex. did become friendly enough so that when he visited France his ex-wife permitted him to stay at the home she had made with her new partner.

To my mind this shows the wisdom of the French courts, and the judge presiding, and their whole family courts system. Dealing with contact orders in a very direct way, demonstrating the flouting of their orders was a serious matter, and so on, (all of which is not the case here I'm reliably informed).
Click to expand...
A few comments about this....

One thing CPS gets right is, they don't believe paragons of virtue exist except in fiction. I try to be patient with the CPS caseworkers because I know most of them have met and had to work with dregs of society who have spawned, some of them prolifically, and had to treat them fairly for months, sometimes years. To see damaged children big and small, day in and day out, effects a person. CPS caseworkers are not friendly, cheery folk, and family court judges are aloof, at best.

The downside of that is, it's nearly impossible to convince them that you actually, really do want what's best for the children involved and that you're not in the fight for what YOU want. And that's the system's greatest challenge: that most parents are really fighting for what they want....like 98% of them, seriously.

This is irrelevant, but Paxton's mom, Tara, just wanted to be the winner. She just hates to lose, and when she does lose she gets revenge, one way or another. Second to winning, she wanted the twins because twins are a novelty. They brought her a lot of attention...although, she always had to tell people they were twins because they weren't identical. One is a boy, one is a girl, she's fairly robust, he's puny. They don't even look like siblings. But she was sure to tell everyone, and soaked up the attention like a dry, empty sponge. Also, Tara thinks giving birth to twins makes her Supermom.

In the US, Penny's guy would be charged with child abduction for leaving the court's jurisdiction. But no one would bother going further than notifying French authorities that he was around there somewhere and to be on the look-out, unless the guy was known to be in dangerous. But in a similar situation in the US, he'd be on a fly-list and at risk of immediate arrest if he ever touched US soil again.

Bottom line in reference to this thread's title/topic, IF assessing Penny's (or anyone's) children's wishes indeed undermined their wishes, then the assessment was flawed, and Penny (or anyone in the same situation) should have immediately hired an attorney (if she didn't).

Assessment is very often the only tool available to family courts in these situations. One can only hope the assessor is highly qualified. And a highly qualified child psychologist with an impressive history of doing accurate assessments would be the first person Penny's attorney would have (should have) hired.
 
Knight said:
Ever curious I searched for an explanation of what a person might need to know about hiring a family law lawyer. I arbitrarily picked this. There is a lot more involved than I thought. The different situations are to long to copy & paste.

https://greenvillefamilylaw.com/child-custody-lawyer-cost/#:~:text=A child custody attorney usually,affordable lawyers can be found.

Hiring a law firm might be affordable since it seems there are so many to chose from.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you want to hire one with as much experience and/or success as possible with the type of situation you're in. But it's a very lucrative field. That's one reason why there are so many.

And the parent who stands accused or is the defendant is eligible for a court appointed attorney if they can't afford one. (tho, I can't recommend one of those)
 
Though its easy to make out someone is a paragon of virtue, and equally easy to make out someone isn't, you don't have to have much compassion in your nature to wish to see someone having given birth to four children playing some part in their lives, and not ruled out of them within months of her marriage failing. We're not talking an "unfit" mother here, though interestingly, and maybe typically, the organisation Penny set up offered support and assistance to all excluded mothers no matter what.

Folks are as obsessed with this term "What's in the child's best interests" as ever I note, and as a term its a load of garbage if you don't mind my saying, not least because you can define it however you like, (as can the courts and its officers).
 
grahamg said:
Though its easy to make out someone is a paragon of virtue, and equally easy to make out someone isn't, you don't have to have much compassion in your nature to wish to see someone having given birth to four children playing some part in their lives, and not ruled out of them within months of her marriage failing. We're not talking an "unfit" mother here, though interestingly, and maybe typically, the organisation Penny set up offered support and assistance to all excluded mothers no matter what.

Folks are as obsessed with this term "What's in the child's best interests" as ever I note, and as a term its a load of garbage if you don't mind my saying, not least because you can define it however you like, (as can the courts and its officers).
Click to expand...
It's all but impossible for me to believe the court barred Penny from her children for no reason, and if our courts and yours are similar at all then the reason was most likely their safety.

Here, the law reads precisely "the court will protect the child's right to have his or her best interests assessed and taken into account as a primary consideration in all actions or decisions that concern him or her, both in the public and private sphere."

"Bests interests" is not an easy term to pin down. In US Children's Rights, Article 3 it's defined as "a dynamic concept that requires an assessment appropriate to the specific context." And what that encompasses depends on how the specific concepts are understood. For example, different cultural, religious, and moral concepts...all rather sticky wickets, right? Well here's another layer of goo, the article also states "no right (of the child) may be compromised by a negative interpretation of the child’s best interests."

I don't wonder why so many Family Court judges seem emotionally dead. In fact, I get sick with worry when we get an emotional one.

I know absolutely nothing about Penny, so in my next point I'll use examples I know personally: Among members of Paxton's immediate family (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins) we have a liquor store robber, repeat offender, three former meth addicts currently claiming to be clean, one who attempted suicide 6 years ago and again 5 years ago, one with multiple misdemeanor shoplifting convictions, one investigated for major insurance fraud, three who have been detained for domestic violence, two arrested for it, and one convicted of it.

The issue here is that the court has to assume that (in addition to the parents) the children will be exposed to at least one of these people at some point growing up. To trust Paxton's parents to prevent that exposure would be risking his and his sibling's safety and their future.

The assessment is written into the law. It's required. And while I firmly believe children over 2 should be asked who they want to live with, that's not the only thing it's about. #1 on the "best interests" list is the child's safety, and nothing supersedes that. Not even culture and religion. So, immediate family members and their history are assessed, and courts here even order background checks through the FBI, in case the kind of stuff in my previous paragraph lurks there.
 
In response to Murrurr's excellent post above, (that I didn't want to scrunch up by quoting):

Penny won't have been barred by the UK family courts from her children's lives, just not supported, (and that's very different isn't it). The reason will have been the views of her children, and if you can accept this without going into it any further, the reason all those children refused to see their mother will have been their fathers influence.

You've painted a very disturbing picture of the situation you're trying to deal with, and I've no advice at all to impart, but thank you for explaining the way US family courts try to proceed in line with your laws.

My "compassion" point above still stands doesn't it, I'm sure you'd have wished someone in authority had tried to assist a very good mother overcome the obstacles placed in her way over contact with her children, if UK family law had allowed this(?).
 
Knight said:
Ever curious I searched for an explanation of what a person might need to know about hiring a family law lawyer. I arbitrarily picked this. There is a lot more involved than I thought. The different situations are to long to copy & paste.
https://greenvillefamilylaw.com/child-custody-lawyer-cost/#:~:text=A child custody attorney usually,affordable lawyers can be found.
Hiring a law firm might be affordable since it seems there are so many to chose from.
Click to expand...
Mentioning lawyers, and potential costs employing one, the fact there are so many maybe indicates what a lucrative business it is for them, attempting to assist those going through marital troubles and its aftermath.

In the UK a tv drama programme has received criticism from those defending the family law system because programme makers have shown the two former spouses attempting to "win" in court, and proceedings are depicted as a battle, (and this those supporting our UK family don't like as they wish to project an impression that family law isn't a battle ground).

Its very difficult to suggest to anyone here who has gone through our family law system and fought to stay in their child's life, that "blame" of some kind isn't going to be apportioned in either the court or by court appointed officers writing their reports.

Are children to be blamed when they choose to make sure the parent they choose to be criticised cannot fully appreciate the situation the parent they've apportioned all fault to in the relationship, when they've no idea at all what it means to try to be a parent, and honestly maintain any kind of role or authority.

Criticising lived ones isn't something I believe parents should be engaged in, especially in front of strangers, and yet all these issues are raised "because the child's voice must be heard" in family law proceedings, (and without the courts making any assumptions that might assist the target parent).

Thus disarmed, how easy it is for the court and its officers to blame a parent for not living up to standards they've set, (even without ever witnessing any contact visits or listening to those who have).
 
Murrmurr said:
Yeah, you want to hire one with as much experience and/or success as possible with the type of situation you're in. But it's a very lucrative field. That's one reason why there are so many.
And the parent who stands accused or is the defendant is eligible for a court appointed attorney if they can't afford one. (tho, I can't recommend one of those)
Click to expand...
I hope you dont mind my coming back to your post, following my discovery of these websites concerning the way those lying in family courts may be treated, (and the lawyers representing/advising them?):
http://www.familylore.co.uk/2020/11/why-are-people-allowed-to-lie-in-family.html

https://www.longmores.law/articles/... court will take,drawn from lies with caution.

Quote
"However, as derived from criminal law, the Family Court also approaches inferences to be drawn from lies with caution. This caution is summarised in the leading case R v Lucas [1981] QB 720:

“If a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons. For example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure…The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just case, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family.”
In summary, both in deciding whether a determination of truth is required and how to deal with any determination, the focus must be on how this relates to the difference in the substantive outcome sought by each party.
 
grahamg said:
I hope you dont mind my coming back to your post, following my discovery of these websites concerning the way those lying in family courts may be treated, (and the lawyers representing/advising them?):
http://www.familylore.co.uk/2020/11/why-are-people-allowed-to-lie-in-family.html

https://www.longmores.law/articles/what-do-i-do-if-my-ex-partner-is-lying-to-the-family-court/#:~:text=Naturally, the court will take,drawn from lies with caution.

Quote
"However, as derived from criminal law, the Family Court also approaches inferences to be drawn from lies with caution. This caution is summarised in the leading case R v Lucas [1981] QB 720:

“If a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons. For example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure…The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just case, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family.”
In summary, both in deciding whether a determination of truth is required and how to deal with any determination, the focus must be on how this relates to the difference in the substantive outcome sought by each party.
Click to expand...
Child custody cases involve people who stand to lose custody their kids to the state, an ex-spouse or a relative whom they loathe, and sometimes to people they've never even met. These cases are extremely emotionally charged, and both sides will do anything to get custody of the kids.

In Paxton's case you've got a mother who doesn't even love him, she just hates to lose to people in authority. So, for her, the case isn't even about what's best for the child, it's about mom not losing. And without exception, she has lied every time she's gone before a family court judge. Without exception. I think most of the judges see through her lies, or at least recognize that she's putting on an act, but when there's no hard evidence, when its just a he-said/she-said thing, the judge has always decided in the mother's favor. Erring on the side of family unity, but unfortunately, most family courts still cling to the archaic view that only a child's mother is *real family*.

There's plenty of hard evidence in Paxton's upcoming case. There's an actual recording of his mother abusing him, and it's a triple-whammy; over 2 hours of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. Plus there's testimony and xrays from the doctor and nurses who examined him at a hospital that day, eyewitness testimony from Paxton's teacher, and recordings of Paxton himself being questioned by a social worker. And now that Pax is 4 1/2, that might hold water.

So, after 2 years of abuse at the hands of his 🌹Mother🌹(🤮), I think Paxton will finally get justice. I think family court will at last do what actually is in the best interest of the child.

However, I still have doubts. The mother will lie in court, and a few friends, Paxton's father, and her new boyfriend agreed to testify about what a great mom she is. The father will have to testify from jail, but it's still testimony...eyewitness, to boot. I hope he tells the judge what he told Pax's grandma - "She didn't hurt him that bad. I mean, it's not like she broke any bones."
 
A friend of mine wrote this to me recently, and I thought it worth sharing here:

"Whilst my Emails may read as if I just made a decision, and moved on, its been 15 years since I had any kind of contact in the normal sense, with any of my marital family, or their descendants, and although I’ve managed to cope with that, there are still many times where I wish I at least understood why they decided to alienate me, otherwise there will never be closure, but equally, I do not want to be seen as some kind of pest, so here I am, stuck between a rock and a hard place, damned if I do,, and damned if I don’t, and with a catch 22 situation like that, the best thing to do, is to just stay away, otherwise all I’ll do is get hurt.

Like they say, “you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family” and although it’s awful to be so cut off, and despite the love and affection I receive from my little adopted family, there’s nothing like family, if they’re loving, to be a part of, because that sense of belonging is always going to be missing with friends, who all have families of their own, to which you will always know, you simply don’t belong.

This time of year particularly, really brings the isolation to the fore, as friends, naturally, head off to be with family, as we sit in silence alone.

To distract myself from the sadness of that, I usually drive into Melbourne, where I wander about the City, soaking up the joy of all those I see enjoying Christmas Eve, until I get tired, then head home to fall asleep, so that I awake to a new day, where I then take myself out to lunch at a restaurant, to at least enjoy a Christmas dinner, among those who are celebrating with others.

This helps pass the day and after that, thing very quickly get back to normal and another Year begins.

The reality is of course, we are, on the outside, looking in, often alone with our thoughts, wondering why?"
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top